Paul Ekman (introduction): Two important concepts are clarified: forgiveness and anger. We start with the question of how we can forgive and still hold people responsible for their actions, for they could have chosen not to do that. The Dalai Lama makes clear how we can maintain forgiveness and yet believe in free will in the choice that we all have not to do harm but to do good. Then I take some of his previous writings to justify how anger can be nonafflictive, but constructive, and he agrees. This was the last few minutes of our second session.

Dalai Lama: Yes.

Ekman: Now, if I have choice, then if I act in a way that harms others, why do you forgive me for doing so? I could have chosen not to.

Dalai Lama:Hm. I will answer, If you keep that sort of grudge…

Ekman: Yes.

Dalai Lama: If you keep grudge, then you’ll get more suffering.

Ekman: Yes.

Dalai Lama: If you give forgiveness, then you feel more… more relieved.

Ekman: Oh. So, it’s good for you.

Dalai Lama: Yes!

Ekman: It is good for the person who forgives, but does it not remove responsibility…?

Dalai Lama: No, no, for example—I’ll give an example. Now we mentally give forgiveness to the Chinese. That means we try to… not to keep negative feeling towards them, because of their wrong deeds, but that does not mean we accept it, what they’ve done. So, this spirit of forgiveness against them, as far as their action is concerned.

Ekman: Explain a little more. I am just on the edge of understanding.

Dalai Lama: Oh. Forgiveness, I feel, means not to forget what they have done. But forgiveness means do not keep your negative feeling towards them. So, as far as their action is concerned, sometimes you should use your intelligence. You deliberately have to take countermeasure, but without negative feeling.

Ekman: Can you take it away from the Chinese for a moment?

Dalai Lama: Laughs.

Ekman: Because, whoever it is, if they act in a harmful fashion, and they had free choice and they chose to act in that way, you forgive them, but do you also condemn their actions?

Dalai Lama: Oh, yes.

Ekman: Yes?

Dalai Lama: Yes!

Ekman: It’s a wrong action.

Dalai Lama: Yes!

Ekman: An unethical, immoral action.

Dalai Lama: Yes—if your side is honest! Then, must criticize.

Ekman: This, I think, is what is in the West misunderstood about the Buddhist view. They believe that the forgiving means you don’t hold them responsible for having acted wrongly. If you don’t hold them responsible, how will they learn and change?

Dalai Lama: Where action is concerned, you have to oppose. You have to stop; you have to try to stop. Even use a bit harsh method. You know? But, as far as actor is concerned, you should not develop negative feeling and should keep a more compassionate attitude. Now, that, we ourselves, you see, we often do that. When I make something, a mistake, to you, then later, I have to, later I will say…

Geshe Thupten Jinpa (translator): Confess.

Dalai Lama: …some kind of confess Oh, confession, right.

Ekman: Yes.

Dalai Lama: “Sorry.” I apologize. So at that time, I make distinction. I myself now feel that’s wrong, wrong action. But wrong action, you never… Still, you believe wrong action is wrong, that action is wrong.

Ekman: Okay. Very important.

Dalai Lama: So I recognize that action is wrong, but that does not mean I’m still doing that. So I apologize. This moment, I make a distinction betweenmy previous action and myself.

Ekman: If I accept your apology, then I am recognizing that you and your action are not identical.

Dalai Lama:Yes, that’s right.

Ekman: And so this leads us right into the heart of anger. Because when you wrote about this—when I first read it, I think in Ethics for a New Millennium—you said that you use force to stop the action and compassion for the actor.

Dalai Lama: Yes.

Ekman: That, I believe, is a description of constructive anger. Which means that if we accept your view of that, we then have to say anger can be constructive.

Dalai Lama: Yes.

Ekman: Yes. You agree?

Dalai Lama: Now, hear, you see, that anger towards that action. Not the person.

If I understand this transcript correctly, the Dalai Lama is saying that there is constructive anger and that it's okay to have anger towards someone's actions, but not the person? This isn't what Buddha taught.

Anger is a delusion arising from ignorance that has no benefit and no good qualities. There is no 'contructive anger' and anger towards actions is not beneficial. Anger arises from unhappiness, and as Buddhist Master Shantideva says:

If something can be remedied, why be unhappy about it?And if there is no remedy for it, there is still no point in being unhappy.

It is not exactly "anger" but reacting in an appropriate way which can prevent more harm. This is correct compassion. When you know for example that someone harms again and again fellows, one shouldn't sit and smile but use intelligence and so use countermeasures to stop it. Stop out of compassion for the perpetuator and the victims, since both are victims of temporary delusion. This is not the same as an angry reaction based on ones own destructive emotions which are then again harmful on themselves.

muni wrote:It is not exactly "anger" but reacting in an appropriate way which can prevent more harm. This is correct compassion. When you know for example that someone harms again and again fellows, one shouldn't sit and smile but use intelligence and so use countermeasures to stop it. Stop out of compassion for the perpetuator and the victims, since both are victims of temporary delusion. This is not the same as an angry reaction based on ones own destructive emotions which are then again harmful on themselves.

Yes, but this is wrath and not anger. Anger can never be justified - except towards ones own delusions when it is wisdom.

muni wrote:It is not exactly "anger" but reacting in an appropriate way which can prevent more harm. This is correct compassion. When you know for example that someone harms again and again fellows, one shouldn't sit and smile but use intelligence and so use countermeasures to stop it. Stop out of compassion for the perpetuator and the victims, since both are victims of temporary delusion. This is not the same as an angry reaction based on ones own destructive emotions which are then again harmful on themselves.

Yes, but this is wrath and not anger. Anger can never be justified - except towards ones own delusions when it is wisdom.

lol in standard usage, the word "wrath" just means especially strong anger. I think it is very clear that HH is not advocating either anger or wrath according to the conventional meaning. He's not saying anything differently than what you've said.

In more than one of the teachings that I have attended he has tried to make several important points on this topic. For example: Yes it is the act not the actor toward which "forceful action" might be needed; the intent, and only justification, must be helping/protecting other sentient beings; one on the Bodhisattva path should not passively accept cruelty or injustice; BUT... unless one has the mind of a Buddha, there is a great danger that our own delusional, emotionally afflicted mind, rather compassion is our actual motivation. So, be mindful... The difficulty is not one of going against the teachings of the Buddha, but finding the right words for expressing the ideas involved. We are, of course, told to avoid harsh and divisive speech, but this doesn't mean it is incorrect to use such language to prevent a child from running into traffic or hanging out with a charming drug dealer.

ananda63 wrote:In more than one of the teachings that I have attended he has tried to make several important points on this topic. For example: Yes it is the act not the actor toward which "forceful action" might be needed; the intent, and only justification, must be helping/protecting other sentient beings; one on the Bodhisattva path should not passively accept cruelty or injustice; BUT... unless one has the mind of a Buddha, there is a great danger that our own delusional, emotionally afflicted mind, rather compassion is our actual motivation. So, be mindful... The difficulty is not one of going against the teachings of the Buddha, but finding the right words for expressing the ideas involved. We are, of course, told to avoid harsh and divisive speech, but this doesn't mean it is incorrect to use such language to prevent a child from running into traffic or hanging out with a charming drug dealer.

Thank you! This is teaching for me. It shows all is our own practice.

Actions are our only "belongings", I read today. Whether these are through mindfulness or through stupidity like emotional curtain which separate me and prevent to see.

Ah then another teaching said: stupidities are pure. So now I am very happy.